MT Silver wrote on Sep 12, 2016, 18:47:Wow. Shameless ripoff. The colours, the artstyle, the interface, hell even the icons look exactly like XCOM. I see 0 innovations in that video. Are these people trying to pretend that XCOM doesn't exist?

Well, they do have a hex tile based world map...

I agree it looks bad, but they're a small indie company so I'm willing to forgive the visuals as long as the gameplay is solid.

Basically some people on reddit just couldn't believe that someone can snap headshot a charging Reinhardt, and started a witch hunt that blew up. Considering this was more than 2 months ago and his account hasn't been banned yet, maybe he's actually good?

thecakeisalie wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 15:00:Surefour was busted using an aimbot after one of his streams was analyzed. Yeah if you are a pro-gamer and/or cheat getting to any rank is possible. If you're not a pro-gamer and/or don't cheat, not so much.

What you're referring to were some Reddit detectives posting suspicious footage from a minor online tournament 2 months ago. Considering there's never been any actual proof, and Surefour's main account is STILL ACTIVE after 2 major Blizzard ban waves, pretty much Reddit is full of shit.

Also, the controversy was regarding Surefour playing hitscan heroes like McCree, and the twitch footage is of Surefour climbing with projectile heroes like Pharah, your accusations of him cheating are pretty much irrelevant.

thecakeisalie wrote on Aug 6, 2016, 10:19:Are you confusing rank with level? They are different. Your level is independent of your SR ranking and it really only used to determine your portrait and control the rate at which you gain "free" loot boxes. SR 74 as a solo player doesn't sound possible to me.

SR 74 as solo is absolutely possible if you're good enough. Here's C9 Surefour hitting SR 78 straight out of placement matches at lvl 26 on his alt, playing pure solo: https://www.twitch.tv/surefour/v/75913731

He climbs by himself to ~SR 81.

Don't blame the matchmaking or groups or your teammates for your low rank. If you've played enough games, you're exactly where you deserve to be.

justice7 wrote on Jun 1, 2016, 12:49:The same goes for any other game with PvP. Ark for example heavily depends on your rig capabilities/performance to be able to properly pvp in heavy encounters. On console everyone has the same setup and are not able to out Ghz the other guy.

I could keep going, just wanted to prove you very wrong. ;p

That's not true at all. Overwatch runs great on older systems, and my 7870 is holding up just fine on medium. And given every match is 6v6, there's a low limit on how heavy encounters can get. Unless your computer is ancient, you can't use your rig as an excuse of why you can't pvp properly.

theglaze wrote on Jun 1, 2016, 11:32:I may consider it when they put in a ranking system for competitive play, not because I'm a hardcore fragger, but because there is a horde of Blizzard fans that only know casual gameplay and are newbs with first-person-shooter dynamics, team tactics, and teamwork via voice comm.

Maybe for consoles, but most PC players would have played some sort of team based shooter like TF2 or CS.

Also, given how matchmaking is skill based, consistently being matched with players who "only know casual gameplay and are newbs with first-person-shooter dynamics" would mean you're just as bad as they are.

descender wrote on Jun 1, 2016, 09:11:Really? I think people severely underestimate how difficult "balancing" really is... they had trouble balancing WoW PvP because it isn't designed to be PvP from the ground up.

For basically every other game they've designed they use an intricate rock/paper/scissors style balance that works extremely well.

The balance in PvP is really bad where only a handful of comps can compete above 2k rating but I'd dare say that PvE is even worse where there are such monstrous disparities from the top and the bottom. As an example, In HFC you're a Rogue and you play anything but Subtlety you're literally doing it wrong. We're not talking 5 - 10% difference between specs, we're talking nearly 100% better than Assassination and nearly 60% better than Combat. If you go MM Hunter which is the top Hunter spec you're smack in the middle and behind a Sub Rogue by about 30%.

Unfortunately, this is how raids tend to unfold for as long as I can remember. You have top-tier specs which you can stack, mid-tier specs which can pull themselves up because of their utility, and then you have garbage tier specs which are more of a liability than a benefit. If I were on even Heroic progression and our Mage was playing Frost rather than Arcane or Fire, that's a huge problem for the group since the game has moved far and away from "bring the player, not the class" thanks to their terrible balance and encounter designs.

Now they're introducing two additional layers of balance with Artifacts and Legendary items which populate trash mobs in the open world that can have varying degrees of performance gains. Oh boy, I can't wait until my spec goes from awesome to garbage in the next tier because of balance and design and I have to regrind the favorable spec assuming I'm not one of several classes that only has one DPS spec.

clint wrote on Jun 1, 2016, 05:17:If the combat has to be perfect, then the game probably isnt your style. Its like complaining about the lack of a story and character development in Doom.

That's is a bad comparison. Combat may not be the focus of the Witcher, but it's still a huge and important part of the game. You spend hours of the game just in combat. It would be as if Doom forced you to sit through hours of poor exposition and bad character development between levels.

VaranDragon wrote on Jun 1, 2016, 09:10:Been playing since Sunday. McCree seems fun, but he is a one trick pony and he is far less dangerous than Tracer IMO. I was loath to buy the game in the first place but a RL friend of mine convinced me to do so, and it does scratch that mindless fun itch I guess and there is no denying the Blizzard polish. I loath to see the damn "balance" changes that Blizzard will no doubt be forcing down our throats every couple of weeks or months but what the hell, there is no way Im gonna be playing this competitively anyway...

McCree is good in the hands of a beginner, and ridiculously good in a hands of a pro. Along with Widowmaker, they're the two most OP heroes at high levels of play.

ForgedReality wrote on May 31, 2016, 19:44:The flourish is one of the best parts of the combat. It's not at all useless. Being in a group of enemies and hitting four at a time feels very cool and satisfying. This isn't until a little later in the game though.

I'm not talking about Whirl under combat skills, which can be pretty useful. I'm talking about the flamboyant telegraphed twirling style of swordsmanship that Geralt uses in the games, which serves no practical purpose other than to look cool.

Tipsy McStagger wrote on May 31, 2016, 16:27:What is the exact problem you guys have with combat? Can you narrow it down from "I DON'T LIKE IT" to what you think is broken about it?

Myself, I find it should have had more directional input. Like Holding forward and attack does a different attack than backwards and attack.

Otherwise, for what it is, I usually just roll out/roll in and tap attack and roll out/roll in. I do not use their light dodge mechanic and I've done fine with this.

It's been a while since I've played the game, but the Witcher combat felt very "clunky" compared to the Souls games and Bloodborne. Sometimes the game autotargets and sticks you to an enemy, and moves your character in relation to that enemy, NOT where your camera/control stick is directing Geralt. Also, all of your sword moves had waayyy to much flourish and wind up animation, which looks cool but is impractical and does not play well.

This doesn't matter much on easier difficulty levels, but on the highest levels it's very annoying. When I die in Bloodborne/Souls, I know I fucked up. When I die in Witcher 3, a lot of the times it's because of some stupid game quirk, which becomes frustrating.

Also, the difficulty of the combat was very uneven. I played the entire game on Death March (with a XBOX controller), and while the beginning ~10 levels were challenging, the latter half of the game was a cakewalk.

Anyways, the combat is not BAD, it's just the weakest part of an otherwise outstanding game.

Agent.X7 wrote on May 28, 2016, 22:22:Can I go to China, Japan, and Korea and bitch about the lack of white dudes in the movies made there? 72% of this country is Caucasian. 12% is black, and they are the BIGGEST minority. Asian ethnics make up about 5% of the population. (From ALL Asian countries.) If anything, most groups are over-represented in Hollywood in some sort of attempt to make everyone feel good about themselves.

Having said that, it is weird when Jesus is a white dude and so is Gandhi. In multiple movies.

The thing is, a lot less than 5% of Hollywood is Asian. If you look at recent major releases, you have Sulu in Star Trek and that dude in the Fast and Furious movie. That's like what, 2 people out of hundreds of actors, both in minor roles. And when's the last time an Asian actor had a leading role in a movie outside of the rare stereotypical Kung Fu flick? There's no way you can say Asians are over-represented.

Also, Hollywood may be based in the US, but it makes movies for global consumption. A lot of blockbusters make WAY more in foreign markets than domestically, and a film's oversea's gross can be essential to its success. That's a huge difference than asian cinema making films for their own much more racially homogenous markets.

Brumbek wrote on May 24, 2016, 00:38:If you're 13 years old and this is your first FPS, then you might find it amazing and unique. If you're experienced with team-based FPS games (Return to Wolf, Battlefields, CoD Domination, TF, TF2, CS...), Overwatch adds nothing new apart from cool art stuff.

You're wrong. Been playing FPSes since Wolf 3D, and Overwatch is fantastic.

Brumbek wrote on May 24, 2016, 00:38:Just because I have a sword, a mech, spells, or six-shooters...to me that is mostly cosmetic...but if you feel that is enough innovation for you...fair enough.

How about AOE shields? Time rewinds? Pudge hooks? Overwatch brings a lot of unique gameplay mechanics to the table. If you call this "cosmetic" then you're out of your fucking mind. No FPS in history has such a diverse and unique roster of characters, and that's what makes Overwatch different.

If Overwatch was the reason for Battleborn's failure, then Battleborn's player count would drop after Overwatch's launch, not long before it.

I think the real issue is that Battleborn is too much of a MOBA. The MOBA market is super saturated right now, with LoL, Dota, Hots, Smite, etc. Personally I dont have the energy to learn another MOBA.

Meanwhile, The last game similar to Overwatch was TF2, which came out 9 years ago, so there's tons of potential marketshare for Blizzard to grab. This is just poor market research by Gearbox.

Task wrote on May 20, 2016, 09:09:I'm glad they decided to sell this game as a premium, instead of freemium. Makes me more likely to get it since premium usually infers less grinding annoyance and more quality and I get everything (a whole game) at once.

Yeah, for a game that promotes mid match hero switches to counter enemy strategy, it makes a lot more sense for all characters to be unlocked from the get go.

Anyways, this game wasn't even on my radar until the open beta, and now it's my most anticipated game in years.

Jagacademy wrote on May 19, 2016, 12:28:Wow that Battlefleet review was the most negative high score review I've ever read. Nonstop complaining with almost nothing positive being said, then gave it an 8.5/10.

Pretty much sums up my experience with the game. I'm at turn 27 / 33 of the single player campaign with a max level Admiral, and don't really have the motivation to finish the game.